BlazeMeter vs. OpenText UFT One

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
BlazeMeter
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
The BlazeMeter Continuous Testing Platform, supported by Broadcom since the acquisition of CA Technologies in 2018 and now by Perforce since the September 2021 acquisition, provides scriptless test automation, as well as unified functional and performance testing. It allows users to test and monitor public, private, and 3rd party APIs, and is deployable as a SaaS, or deployed from a private cloud.
$199
per month
OpenText UFT One
Score 7.8 out of 10
N/A
Unified Functional Testing (UFT, formerly known as HP UFT and before that QuickTest Professional or HP QTP) is a functional and performance testing tool acquired by Micro Focus from Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, now from OpenText.N/A
Pricing
BlazeMeterOpenText UFT One
Editions & Modules
Basic
$149.00
per month
Pro
$649.00
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
BlazeMeterOpenText UFT One
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Best Alternatives
BlazeMeterOpenText UFT One
Small Businesses
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
BrowserStack
BrowserStack
Score 8.3 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
ReadyAPI
ReadyAPI
Score 8.1 out of 10
Enterprises
ignio AIOps
ignio AIOps
Score 8.2 out of 10
SoapUI Open Source
SoapUI Open Source
Score 7.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
BlazeMeterOpenText UFT One
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(5 ratings)
8.9
(11 ratings)
Support Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
BlazeMeterOpenText UFT One
Likelihood to Recommend
Perforce Software
It is well suited for applications that are mission-critical or applications that can receive high traffic/transactions at unscheduled time periods. Using the load testing feature of BlazeMeter, we can test and ascertain the capacity of the application without the drawbacks of the usual Apache JMeter load testing which depends heavily on the host system from where the load testing is performed.
Read full review
OpenText
UFT is well suited if the price is not an issue, and if the requirement is about testing different technologies. If the application is based on Legacy platforms like Siebel or Mainframe, UFT fares quite well. For low cost web-based projects, there are other cheap and open source tools available. If it is about API testing or Mobile Testing, it is better to use other tools like TOSCA.
Read full review
Pros
Perforce Software
  • Results are easy to read
  • Tests can be run easily
  • Tests can ben imported easily from jMeter
Read full review
OpenText
  • The simple front end will allow novice users to easily grasp the basics of automation and give them confidence to try things for themselves.
  • UFT can scale up and run across multiple machines from a single controller, such as ALM, enabling hundreds of tests to be executed overnight.
  • There is an active support community out there, both official HPE based and independent users. This means if you do encounter a problem there is always someone out there to help you.
  • The later versions have many add-ins to plug in to other tools within the QA world.
  • Expert users are able to utilise the many native functions and also build their own to get the most out of the tool and impress people as they walk past and see the magic happening on the screen.
  • UFT also has LeanFT bundled with it, allowing automated testing at the api level - if you can convince the developers to let you in there.
Read full review
Cons
Perforce Software
  • BlazeMeter should not require the purchase of 2 dedicated IPs for each suite of performance tests.
  • BlazeMeter should make custom packages cheaper than they are today when purchased for an enterprise and should include dedicated IPs in the package.
  • BlazeMerer should have integration with Jenkins Pipeline 2.0.
Read full review
OpenText
  • Its licensing cost is very high making it a very expensive tool. due to this many organisations are exploring options of license free tools like Selenium for automation. Though learning curve is large in case of Selenium but it is very cost effective & you an get lot of support online for Selenium.
  • Though the scripting time is less since its easy to create automation scripts, the execution time is relatively higher as it takes the lot of CPU & RAM.
  • Though UFT is quite stable but during long execution cycles we do get frequent browser crashing issues.
  • In terms of costing TestComplete is also one option which is not free but comes with modular pricing. You can buy what you need, when you need.
Read full review
Support Rating
Perforce Software
No answers on this topic
OpenText
HPE are quick to reply and it's possible to get through to the actual developers shuold the case warrent it. Their online system allows updates and tracking of all incedents raised.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Perforce Software
Personally, I prefer using JMeter + Redline13, however we had some business folks that wanted to be able to run a few of their own tests. The non-technical individuals preferred to use Blazemeter because of its simple and intuitive UI.
Read full review
OpenText
1. It works solid for automate SAP and S/4 Hana applications and Fiori too. 2. Teams are well versed about UFT One 3. Able to handle maintained execution results 4. Publish Automation execution results in well manner to the leadership team/stake holders 5. More help content available 6. Able to understand non technical resources about normal view.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Perforce Software
  • It helped positively by helping to identify the maximum capacity needed for high traffic periods
  • Saved revenue by eliminating unwanted duplication of systems
Read full review
OpenText
  • Reduces the total workload of keeping the team to test older (regression) functionality. QA testers can concentrate on ad-hoc and exploratory testing, saving time and effort across the entire project.
  • Has built a better infrastructure for the client applications on which we can rely on for stability and providing regression results for any new features being developed.
  • Led the applications a step closer to implementing agile practices and DevOps across the entire organization. Thus, providing a better turnaround time of new features to the customers and less maintenance headaches for the BAU team to address.
Read full review
ScreenShots